I saw a quote from The Economist that stated a poll found that 62 percent of Americans think the best way to reduce the deficit is by cutting spending. 62 percent! That's a lot of Americans to get to agree on anything. But our Congress and President, current and past ones included, rarely cut anything when it comes to spending but instead, they find new ways to spend it, which requires feeding the federal giant more and more and more and ... you get the idea.
So, if so many Americans are in agreement about what needs to be done, why can't we get it done? Because we don't want OUR spending cut. Yes, we whine about earmarks, but that nice facility down the road paid for by federal dollars, that can't possibly be cut. Oh, and that airport that 10 people use a week? Yeah, those 10 people don't want it cut either. Oh, and those Medicare/Medicaid subsidies, no, can't cut those. How about Social Security, after all, it makes us money, right? Sure it did, until this year anyway, but regardless, there are a ton of better ways to run a retirement program, ask Chile and Australia, both using better, more cost effective models that aren't just Congressionally mandated ponzi schemes. Oh no, can't change how Social Security is done and certainly can't cut it, Americans don't pay attention to saving money and so need all that extra "help". So, WE THE PEOPLE, are part of the problem. We allowed the federal government to turn into the huge dragon that eats its own in "How to Train Your Dragon" and now we are nothing more than the little dragons, relying on the big one for support and defense and security. If you've seen the movie though, you'll know that those things are only provided to the little dragons as long as they keep feeding the monstrous one. Yikes! How do I know we are part of the problem? Because 62 percent of us think we need to cut spending, yet when asked in an Economist/YouGov poll where people think we should cut, not only could a majority not agree on anything, but what they did agree on made no difference. See, here were the results ...
Veteran’s benefits 6%
Social Security 7%
Medicare 7%
Medicaid 11%
Education 12%
Highways 12%
None of the Above 12%
Health research 13%
Aid to the poor 17%
Unemployment benefits 19%
National Defense 22%
Science and Technology 22%
Mass transit 27%
Agriculture 27%
Housing 27%
The Environment 29%
Foreign Aid 71%
Sorry folks, 62 percent of us think we should cut spending, but we couldn't get more than 29 percent to agree on where we should cut except in foreign aid. Well that's just great. Let's cut all foreign aid, I'm all for that, except we'd only cut 1 percent of the federal budget by doing that so it isn't enough. The Environment got high numbers too, as did Housing, Agriculture and Mass transit. Agriculture would actually do something because of all the farm subsidies but still not enough. Even if we cut all these things into non-existence, it still isn't enough. Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid make up 40 percent of the federal budget, yet only 7 percent could agree that this is where we need to cut. Defense is 20 percent and only 22 percent could agree here. So, 2/3 of the budget is off limits? Is that what we are saying here? Astounding. Even worse, 12 percent of the respondents stated that we couldn't cut in ANY of the areas stated. So, yes, the President and the Congress are largely at fault for mishandling and misspending our money, but our own inability to depend on ourselves rather than slowly enslaving ourselves to the federal dragon. Conclusion? WE THE PEOPLE are part of the problem!
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
A letter from Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, November 29, 1802
I came across this letter, written by Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, Esq. and found a few of the points very interesting. Read the letter and then my comments are below.
"WASHINGTON, November 29, 1802.
DEAR SIR,
Your favor of October 25th was received in due time, and I thank you for the long extract you took the trouble of making from Mr. Stone 's letter : Certainly the information it communicates as to Alexander kindles a great deal of interest in his existence, and strong spasms of the heart in his favor. Though his means of doing good are great, yet the materials. on which he is to work are refractory. Whether he engages in private correspondences abroad, as the King of Prussia did much, and his grandfather sometimes, I know not; but certainly such a correspondence would be very interesting to those who are sincerely anxious to see mankind raised from their present abject condition. It delights me to find that there are persons who still think that all is not lost in France : that their retrogradation from a limited to an unlimited despotism, is but to give themselves a new impulse. But I see not how or when. The press, the only tocsin of a nation, is completely silenced there, and all means of a general effort taken away. However, I am willing to hope, and as long as anybody will hope with me; and I am entirely persuaded that the agitations of the public mind advance its powers, and that at every vibration between the points of liberty and despotism, something will be gained for the former. As men become better informed, their rulers must respect them the more. I think you will be sensible that our citizens are fast returning, from the panic into which they were artfully thrown, to the dictates of their own reason; and I believe the delusions they have seen themselves hurried into will be useful as a lesson under similar attempts on them in future. The good effects of our late fiscal arrangements will certainly tend to unite them in opinion, and in confidence as to the views of their public functionaries, legislative and executive. The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature. A noiseless course, meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. Their finances are now under such a course of application as nothing could derange but war or federalism. The gripe of the latter has shown itself as deadly as the jaws of the former. Our adversaries say we are indebted to their providence for the means of paying the public debt. We never charged them with the want of foresight in providing money, but with the misapplication of it after they had provided it. We say they raised not only enough, but too much ; and that after giving back the surplus we do more with a part than they did with the whole."
There are several important statements to highlight here. First, in referring to France, Jefferson stated "The press, the only tocsin of a nation, is completely silenced there" which clearly indicates that he believed a free press necessary to a free society and a press not beholden to an individual leader. After all, who would have been silencing the press in France, eh? Secondly, he stated this: "The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature. A noiseless course, meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness." By this he is saying that Congress should not be busy but rather it should be noiseless and not attract any attention, basically, that it should do almost nothing. Sounds good to me. Next, he believed it was NOT the job of the government to take care of us but was in fact a danger that the government would try to do just that. He said, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." This means that a strong, powerful government that wants to "help" you is not the government of a free state but is instead a wasteful government that must be prevented. Dare I say he meant it isn't the job of the government to "take care of us"? How revolutionary. Maybe I am a radical, just like Jefferson. Finally, the last part of the letter states this, "We never charged them with the want of foresight in providing money, but with the misapplication of it after they had provided it. We say they raised not only enough, but too much ; and that after giving back the surplus we do more with a part than they did with the whole." He states that the government can tax us, but they should not overtax us or misuse the money they do tax. In fact, he was saying that he (his party, whatever) was better at properly handling the money they had whereas the other side misused it. Wow, I think Jefferson would find our code of laws and our tax code to be abhorrent.
"WASHINGTON, November 29, 1802.
DEAR SIR,
Your favor of October 25th was received in due time, and I thank you for the long extract you took the trouble of making from Mr. Stone 's letter : Certainly the information it communicates as to Alexander kindles a great deal of interest in his existence, and strong spasms of the heart in his favor. Though his means of doing good are great, yet the materials. on which he is to work are refractory. Whether he engages in private correspondences abroad, as the King of Prussia did much, and his grandfather sometimes, I know not; but certainly such a correspondence would be very interesting to those who are sincerely anxious to see mankind raised from their present abject condition. It delights me to find that there are persons who still think that all is not lost in France : that their retrogradation from a limited to an unlimited despotism, is but to give themselves a new impulse. But I see not how or when. The press, the only tocsin of a nation, is completely silenced there, and all means of a general effort taken away. However, I am willing to hope, and as long as anybody will hope with me; and I am entirely persuaded that the agitations of the public mind advance its powers, and that at every vibration between the points of liberty and despotism, something will be gained for the former. As men become better informed, their rulers must respect them the more. I think you will be sensible that our citizens are fast returning, from the panic into which they were artfully thrown, to the dictates of their own reason; and I believe the delusions they have seen themselves hurried into will be useful as a lesson under similar attempts on them in future. The good effects of our late fiscal arrangements will certainly tend to unite them in opinion, and in confidence as to the views of their public functionaries, legislative and executive. The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature. A noiseless course, meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. Their finances are now under such a course of application as nothing could derange but war or federalism. The gripe of the latter has shown itself as deadly as the jaws of the former. Our adversaries say we are indebted to their providence for the means of paying the public debt. We never charged them with the want of foresight in providing money, but with the misapplication of it after they had provided it. We say they raised not only enough, but too much ; and that after giving back the surplus we do more with a part than they did with the whole."
There are several important statements to highlight here. First, in referring to France, Jefferson stated "The press, the only tocsin of a nation, is completely silenced there" which clearly indicates that he believed a free press necessary to a free society and a press not beholden to an individual leader. After all, who would have been silencing the press in France, eh? Secondly, he stated this: "The path we have to pursue is so quiet that we have nothing scarcely to propose to our Legislature. A noiseless course, meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness." By this he is saying that Congress should not be busy but rather it should be noiseless and not attract any attention, basically, that it should do almost nothing. Sounds good to me. Next, he believed it was NOT the job of the government to take care of us but was in fact a danger that the government would try to do just that. He said, "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." This means that a strong, powerful government that wants to "help" you is not the government of a free state but is instead a wasteful government that must be prevented. Dare I say he meant it isn't the job of the government to "take care of us"? How revolutionary. Maybe I am a radical, just like Jefferson. Finally, the last part of the letter states this, "We never charged them with the want of foresight in providing money, but with the misapplication of it after they had provided it. We say they raised not only enough, but too much ; and that after giving back the surplus we do more with a part than they did with the whole." He states that the government can tax us, but they should not overtax us or misuse the money they do tax. In fact, he was saying that he (his party, whatever) was better at properly handling the money they had whereas the other side misused it. Wow, I think Jefferson would find our code of laws and our tax code to be abhorrent.
Friday, April 2, 2010
States fight back
It seems there are a few states in this great country that have rediscovered the tenth amendment of our Constitution. It states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." which basically means that if the power wasn't specifically provided to the federal government, then it lies with the states and the people and the federal government can't do it. Boy how this has been ignored over the years.
Nonetheless, two cases have now arisen that indicate some states have rediscovered the meaning of this most important amendment. The first case comes out of Utah and is about eminent domain. Over time, the federal government has nationalized large swaths, nearly 70 percent, of Utah through the power of eminent domain and Utah wants it back. The Constitution states the power of the federal government in these kinds of cases is that it can take land under eminent domain only if it has the consent of Congress AND of the state legislature. Utah is now pressing for return of that land under eminent domain because of two issues. Eminent domain is supposed to serve some sort of greater purpose, but the federal government has taken the land and done nothing with it, at all. They've simply nationalized it to prevent Utah from exploiting natural resources. Secondly, Utah is claiming that they've never given consent for the taking of the land and therefore the land grabs are unconstitutional. This will be an interesting case to watch.
The second case being brought has now been joined by a total of 12 states. It is declaring that the new health care legislation is unconstitutional because it violates states rights and because the federal government is assuming powers for itself prohibited to it by the tenth amendment. This also will be interesting to watch and is perhaps even more important than the Utah case. The argument is that the federal government doesn't have any constitutional authority to regulate health care and especially does not have the authority to declare that all citizens MUST have insurance as this legislation does. While the states have made such sweeping claims on their own, the tenth amendment clearly says the states have ALL the powers not already given to the federal government, so that is not the constitutional issue but rather whether the federal government has that power. My reading of the constitutional says it does not and, so far, 12 states (Texas, South Carolina, Nebraska, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Louisiana,
Idaho, Washington and Colorado) agree and are bringing suit. What interesting times we live in. As for my opinion on this, go Utah and go tenth amendment and get the fed out of business of meddling in things it has no business being involved with.
Nonetheless, two cases have now arisen that indicate some states have rediscovered the meaning of this most important amendment. The first case comes out of Utah and is about eminent domain. Over time, the federal government has nationalized large swaths, nearly 70 percent, of Utah through the power of eminent domain and Utah wants it back. The Constitution states the power of the federal government in these kinds of cases is that it can take land under eminent domain only if it has the consent of Congress AND of the state legislature. Utah is now pressing for return of that land under eminent domain because of two issues. Eminent domain is supposed to serve some sort of greater purpose, but the federal government has taken the land and done nothing with it, at all. They've simply nationalized it to prevent Utah from exploiting natural resources. Secondly, Utah is claiming that they've never given consent for the taking of the land and therefore the land grabs are unconstitutional. This will be an interesting case to watch.
The second case being brought has now been joined by a total of 12 states. It is declaring that the new health care legislation is unconstitutional because it violates states rights and because the federal government is assuming powers for itself prohibited to it by the tenth amendment. This also will be interesting to watch and is perhaps even more important than the Utah case. The argument is that the federal government doesn't have any constitutional authority to regulate health care and especially does not have the authority to declare that all citizens MUST have insurance as this legislation does. While the states have made such sweeping claims on their own, the tenth amendment clearly says the states have ALL the powers not already given to the federal government, so that is not the constitutional issue but rather whether the federal government has that power. My reading of the constitutional says it does not and, so far, 12 states (Texas, South Carolina, Nebraska, Michigan, Utah, Pennsylvania, Alabama, South Dakota, Louisiana,
Idaho, Washington and Colorado) agree and are bringing suit. What interesting times we live in. As for my opinion on this, go Utah and go tenth amendment and get the fed out of business of meddling in things it has no business being involved with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)